Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Decreased Funding from NIH in SCI

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Decreased Funding from NIH in SCI

    Did anyone notice the $14 million decrease from the NIH recieciently posted. Can somebody explain logically or reasonably this?

    http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

    We need to do something to change this, before we loose more good researchers in our field. What can we do to get the NIH to accelerate neuroregeneration?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	155.2 KB
ID:	2666986

  • #2
    Sequestration:

    On March 1, 2013, as required by statute, President Obama signed an order initiating sequestration. The sequestration requires NIH to cut 5 percent or $1.55 billion of its fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget. NIH must apply the cut evenly across all programs, projects, and activities (PPAs), which are primarily NIH institutes and centers. This means every area of medical research was affected.

    http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2013/nih-03.htm
    http://spinalcordresearchandadvocacy.wordpress.com/

    Comment


    • #3
      Ouch. Thanks Grammy, that's what I thought. Are there any high level steps being proposed to increase funds? Looks like we are better off appealing to hot shot billionaires.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by GRAMMY View Post
        Sequestration:

        On March 1, 2013, as required by statute, President Obama signed an order initiating sequestration. The sequestration requires NIH to cut 5 percent or $1.55 billion of its fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget. NIH must apply the cut evenly across all programs, projects, and activities (PPAs), which are primarily NIH institutes and centers. This means every area of medical research was affected.

        http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2013/nih-03.htm
        Grammy,

        If you look at the graph provided by Skipow you will see that the cuts are not being made evenly. Maybe the cuts are from budgets that were going to rise much more than SCI, but you can see that SCI isn't at the top of our governments medical concerns.

        Jim

        Comment


        • #5
          We need to have a united advocate group for research. We should partner with other neuro disease advocacy groups to push for a federally funded neuroregeneration initiative! Maybe we could do a lobby day after W2W this late summer, since it is in Bethesda, Maryland if U2FP is okay with that?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GRAMMY View Post
            Sequestration:

            On March 1, 2013, as required by statute, President Obama signed an order initiating sequestration.
            Thanks Obama...

            Comment


            • #7
              I wrote many years ago in the political forum this was going to happen if Obama was elected. Obama is a big spender. He going to fund the social causes that he feels strongest for and the ones that support him and his colleagues. Obamacare, immigration, global warming.

              Look at what Al Gore has done for global warming. The money that's has been wasted on false data, made up reports to support their side. All to pocket them and their colleagues. Obama and his colleagues get huge financial support from this sector. They fund their campaigns and keeps them in office.


              Here's a link to all the wasted money that went to green energy companies, which I might add many were headed by guys that knew nothing about running a company or much about green energy. They were PAC guys jumping on the gravy train.

              http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of...lar-companies/

              We are talking about billions and billions of dollars.

              I know the liberals here will say this doesn't belong in this forum. But it does. All this has everything to do with funding the NIH.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by funklab View Post
                Thanks Obama...
                Huh? Sequestration was the result of the Tea Party's push to balance the budget. Not that Obama was blameless, but it wasn't his idea.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Who makes the decision on percentage distribution on research in the NIH? The President, Congress, or NIH Directors?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by khmorgan View Post
                    Huh? Sequestration was the result of the Tea Party's push to balance the budget. Not that Obama was blameless, but it wasn't his idea.
                    Um, no! Sequester originated from the White House.
                    2010 SCINet Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
                    Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Skipow View Post
                      Who makes the decision on percentage distribution on research in the NIH? The President, Congress, or NIH Directors?
                      Skipow,

                      NIH submits a budget request to the White House every year, based on internal review and discussion of the needs and programs. The White House trims or adds to that request based on priorities set by the President. The White House budget goes to Congress in February. The House Appropriations Committee considers the budget, followed by the Senate. They each pass their respective versions of the budget and a bipartisan joint committee of the Senate and House hammers out the budget before it is passed. That is the way it is supposed to work.

                      Unfortunately, for almost every year since 2008, Congress has not been able to pass a budget. So, they instead passed continuing resolutions, which approved the same budget from the previous year, adjusted by amendments through the year. The National Institutes of Health has had no increase in funding since 2003. In 2013, Congress passed a rule that says that if they do not pass a budget, the fallback budget will involve sequestration of funds to reduce the nation's debt. These sequestration rules resulted in 5% cuts of the NIH budget last year. For the first time in memory (since World War II), our Congress has actually reduced NIH funding.

                      Rather than take my word for it, people should read a letter that Congressman Sandy Levin of the 9th Congressional District of Michigan wrote to John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi in November of 2014. It requests that the NIH budget be restored to pre-sequestration levels, with inflation taken into account. The letter emphasized the importance of biomedical research for health and prosperity of the nation.

                      http://levin.house.gov/levin-urges-i...ackage-fy-2015
                      Levin Urges for Increase Funding for NIH to be included in upcoming omnibus appropriations package for FY 2015
                      Nov 18, 2014 Issues: Health Care
                      The Honorable John Boehner The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
                      Speaker of the House Minority Leader
                      U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
                      H-232, U.S. Capitol H-204, U.S. Capitol
                      Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

                      Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi:

                      As the House begins crafting appropriations legislation before the current continuing resolution expires on December 12, 2014, we write to express our deep concern with the current funding level provided for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In any continuing resolution or omnibus appropriations package for FY 2015, we urge you to work with your colleagues in the Senate to fully restore NIH funding to at least the agency?s pre-sequester level, adjusted for inflation, in order to maintain America?s role as a global leader in biomedical research and ground-breaking medical discoveries.

                      We are concerned that, over the last 10 years, the federal government?s contributions toward basic research at NIH have consistently failed to keep pace with inflation. By failing to at least hold NIH funding constant with other rising costs, Congress has allowed the agency?s purchasing power to diminish by more than 20 percent since 2003. Irresponsible budget cuts imposed on the agency during sequestration only further exacerbated this trend, reducing NIH?s budget by an additional 5 percent in FY 2013. As the growth in other countries? investments in medical research continues to far outpace those made here in the U.S., it is more critical than ever that we act to reverse this trend.

                      Insufficient funding for NIH has a serious, wide-ranging impact on our nation?s health and our capacity for medical innovation in the 21st century. If we are serious about breaking new ground in our understanding of complex diseases like Alzheimer?s and cancer, and if we hope to accelerate the speed with which new cures, treatments and vaccines are developed ? goals that are supported by Congressional leaders of both parties ? then it?s absolutely essential that we increase funding for medical research at NIH. Particularly given our constituents? renewed focus in recent months on developing vaccines and treatments for diseases like Ebola and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), we feel strongly that now is the time to invest in our nation?s long-term health and prosperity.

                      While we understand the difficult fiscal challenges you face, we urge you to prioritize the important role that NIH plays in biomedical research and economic growth by working to fully restore its funding to at least pre-sequester levels, adjusted for inflation. Thank you for your consideration.

                      Sincerely,
                      [Sandy Levin]
                      In December 2014, Congress agreed on an omnibus bill that prevented closure of the government in January 2015 but House Republicans still wanted to play political football with the budget. They withheld approval of the Homeland Security budget in hopes of pressuring the White House in February to withdraw its controversial immigration policy. It did not work. The 2016 budget is wending its way through the committees in Congress. Nobody wants sequestration to happen again with another 5% cut of the budget. However, nothing is likely to change until the impasse between the White House and Congress is resolved. This is not likely to occur until after Obama leaves office.

                      Wise.
                      Last edited by Wise Young; 03-10-2015, 01:54 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Skipow View Post
                        Who makes the decision on percentage distribution on research in the NIH? The President, Congress, or NIH Directors?
                        I see at W2W there is someone from the NIH:

                        Spinal Cord Injury Research Support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
                        Lyn Jakeman, PhD,National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

                        http://www.u2fp.org/organize/events/...2-walk/agenda/

                        People should ask this questions there. Also we should find out how to restore funding at least just with 5% reduction
                        In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Gee thanks Obama...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Skipow View Post
                            Did anyone notice the $14 million decrease from the NIH recieciently posted. Can somebody explain logically or reasonably this?

                            http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

                            We need to do something to change this, before we loose more good researchers in our field. What can we do to get the NIH to accelerate neuroregeneration?

                            [ATTACH]56585[/ATTACH]
                            Parkinson's orgs and patients seem to be much more active than SCI ones:

                            http://californiastemcellreport.blog...smayed-at.html
                            In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JakeHalsted View Post
                              Gee thanks Obama...
                              You get what you ask for.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X